Abstract:

Since their introduction in 1970, glass ionomer cements have been used in a wide variety of clinical situations in dentistry. The main advantages of glass ionomer cements are chemical bonding, fluoride release and uptake, excellent seal against microleakage, and biocompatibility. The main objective of this study was to compare the microleakage of two new paste-paste glass ionomer systems to their traditional RMGIC counterparts when conditioning the dentin with newly developed no-rinse conditioners or polyacrylic acid. Materials and methods: Standardized cavity preparations were made, centered on the cementoenamel junction of the buccal surface, on 96 extracted human molars divided in 8 groups (n = 12). G1 Ketac Nano with Ketac Nano Primer, G2 Ketac Nano with Ketac Conditioner, G3 Photac Fil with Ketac Nano Primer, G4 Photac Fil with Ketac Cavity Conditioner, G5 Fuji Filling LC with GC Self Conditioner, G6 Fuji Filling LC with GC Cavity Conditioner, G7 Fuji II LC with GC Self Conditioner, G8 Fuji II LC with GC Cavity Conditioner. The cavities were treated with either a no-rinse or polyacrylic acid conditioner and restored with a paste-paste RMGIC or traditional RMGIC from the same manufacturer (n =12). The teeth were then sealed to within 2 mm of the restoration margins and thermocycled. The teeth were immersed in 2.0-percent methylene blue and stored at room temperature for 24 hours. Then, the teeth were be embedded in resin and sectioned longitudinally in a buccolingual direction making 1 section (1 mm thick) per tooth. The occlusal and gingival restoration margins of each specimen were examined with a stereomicroscope at X10 magnification to determine the degree of microleakage. Results: Mixed-model ANOVA was used to test the fixed effect of the eight groups and cervical vs. occlusal location within each tooth sample on microleakage, with sample as the random effect. Both main effects and the interaction are significant, p < 0001 for both group and location effects, and p = 0.0013 for the interaction of group and location. The cervical interface showed more microleakage in all groups except group 8 where microleakage was the same as at the occlusal margin. No significant difference was observed among groups for microleakage at the occlusal interface. There was significant difference among groups at the cervical interface with Fuji II LC using GC Cavity Conditioner performing best. For the occlusal interface Group 4 performed the best and Group 2 performed the worst, although the difference was not significant among the groups. For the cervical interface, Group 8 performed the best followed by Group 3, Group 4 and Group 6, although these four groups were not significantly different. For the cervical interface, group 2 performed the worst followed by group 1. Based on these results we can conclude that, overall, traditional RMGIC with polyacrylic acid conditioning performed better than the new paste-paste RMGIC systems utilizing the no-rinse conditioners.